January 9, 2011

"Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me."

1640s, "operation of an army in the field," from Fr. campagne "campaign," lit. "open country," from O.Fr. champagne "open country" (suited to military maneuvers), from L.L. campania "level country" (cf. It. campagna, Sp. campaña, Port. campanha), from L. campus "a field" ... Old armies spent winters in quarters and took to the "open field" to seek battle in summer. Extension of meaning from military to political is Amer.Eng. 1809. ...

And you know damned well that the people who are calling for the abandonment of violent metaphor are setting themselves up for hypocrisy when they go back to it. It will be so tedious to point it out when the time comes.

Primarily on the basis of linguistic evidence, we have found that most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in nature. ...

To give some idea of what it could mean for a concept to be metaphorical and for such a concept to structure an everyday activity, let us start with the concept ARGUMENT and the conceptual metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR. This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:

ARGUMENT IS WAR

Your claims are indefensible.

He attacked every weak point in my argument.

His criticisms were right on target.

I demolished his argument.

I've never won an argument with him.

you disagree? Okay, shoot!

If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.

He shot down all of my arguments.

It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war. Though there is no physical battle, there is a verbal battle, and the structure of an argument — attack, defense, counter-attack, etc. — reflects this. It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT IS WAR metaphor is one that we live by in this culture; its structures the actions we perform in arguing. Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange even to call what they were doing "arguing." In perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance. This is an example of what it means for a metaphorical concept, namely, ARGUMENT IS WAR, to structure (at least in part) what we do and how we understand what we are doing when we argue. The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. It is not that arguments are a subspecies of war. Arguments and wars are different kinds of things — verbal discourse and armed conflict — and the actions performed are different kinds of actions. But ARGUMENT is partially structured, understood, performed, and talked about in terms of WAR. The concept is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is metaphorically structured.

Moreover, this is the ordinary way of having an argument and talking about one. The normal way for us to talk about attacking a position is to use the words "attack a position." Our conventional ways of talking about arguments presuppose a metaphor we are hardly ever conscious of. The metaphors not merely in the words we use — it is in our very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical; it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them that way — and we act according to the way we conceive of things.

The most important claim we have made so far is that metaphor is not just a matter of language, that is, of mere words. We shall argue that, on the contrary, human thought processes are largely metaphorical. This is what we mean when we say that the human conceptual system is metaphorically structured and defined. Metaphors as linguistic expressions are possible precisely because there are metaphors in a person's conceptual system. Therefore, whenever in this book we speak of metaphors, such as ARGUMENT IS WAR, it should be understood that metaphor means metaphorical concept.

Now, perhaps you think we shouldn't argue anymore and you'd like to deprive us of our war metaphors as a way to make us amiable, uncomplaining citizens in the future. You think that controlling speech would improve the world. But it wouldn't. In fact, it would be... doubleplusungood.

No. I blame the hateful rhetoric from the likes of AlphaLibtard for the Libtard (yes, he identified as a liberal) who shot all those people.

Clearly, its all the fault of people like AlphaLibtard. They should all be marginalized by this one libtard kook and locked up in camps where their violent rhetoric won't reach the ears of the typical brain-damaged liberal.

"As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.”

Report to the camps AlphaLibtard. And take Jeremy/HDHouse/DTL/et al with you.

I reject the notion that any political rhetoric is responsible for any of this. My example is not a condemnation of Mitchell, but an illustration of your rank hypocrisy. I do not condemn political rhetoric or imagery; in fact, I embrace it! It is part and parcel of this nation's history and is enshrined in it's politics. You've surrounded yourself in a feel-good fog of an imagined past when politics was somehow innocent and wholesome, instead of the blood sport that it is.

When you condemn so-called "violent" political speech and/or imagery, then you condemn free speech in toto, and that is where you are, Alpha.

And:

Can no conservatives see any problem with this kind of talk? (quoting AlphaLiberal)

This one certainly doesn't. There is no "violent" speech. There is no "hate" speech. There is simply speech, the freedom of which is enshrined in the 1st Amendment. You obviously have a problem with that, Alpha. You want to shut down political speech you disagree with. I don't. The more, the merrier. It's the American way.

Don't give me bullshit about yelling, "Fire!," yada, yada.

Not one single example you tossed up is an incitement to riot, mayhem or murder. Not a damn one of them.

The left AND right AND all points in between use the exact same language, imagery and symbolism when it comes to politics. They always have and they always will.

Speech can be stirring and inflammatory ("A house divided against itself...", "Ask not what your country can do for you...","As for me, give me liberty or give me death"). If we allow opportunists to regulate what is acceptable, we will only be allowed speech which can be approved on the basis of its objective.

Ann Althouse said...

You think that controlling speech would improve the world. But it wouldn't. In fact, it would be... doubleplusungood.

I see opposite ends of the spectrum as being opposed and incompatable. Given your theory, please tell me how totalitarianism can somehow complete the circle by becoming it's polar opposite, anarchy, or visa versa.

It's good for the journalism business, and punditocracy, and media crazes. Not good for rational democracy. But journalists, pundits, and media-windbags such as Rush and the Slate-sters are not in the business of telling the truth. They're in the business of selling ads.

Naive nostalgia about how supposedly high-minded political discourse used to be doesn't help. The language used by our Founding Fathers during election campaigns--you know, the ones who wrote and ratified the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights--was as vitriolic as anything spoken or written today.

I believe that I, as one of the few moderate-liberals on this board (of for the good old days), am as much a champion of free speech - completely free speech - as anyone but I have to disagree here.

The right is only slightly limited in circumstances (fire in the theatre etc.) but I'm not sure that the framers had in mind a society where so many voices can be heard and with equal "authority".

Internet business is a prime example. Brick and mortar are gone in favor of an internet storefront. You have very little idea about the veracity of the contents or the management - essentially who is putting up the product and sending you the message - and it is up to the individual to decide if listening to the message is a good idea or not, of value or not, true or not.

The same holds true with "fact" interspersed opinion that bombards everyone all day all the time. It is very hard to figure out what is true and what isn't and I guess the point is this lunatic in Arizona had very little "quality control" in his mind. He certainly had lost a grip on what was real and what was just in his mind and, free speech be damned, he got lost in the endless messages.

Florida said... "The right feels the need to be intellectually consistent."

...those who possess an intellect perhaps....

See? This is just what I mean. There was no need for Florida to say that. I had a need, however, to poke fun at such a silly generalization. Florida will come back with some name calling and we will be off to the races.

Jack Schafer is right to a point - like the point of a gun, say. Like when guns are brought to political events and threats are made to use them. Or when it goes beyond figures of speech to actual threatened violence.

It's actually funny how conservatives say that their violent political speech inspires no-one to action.

The whole point of political speech of to get people to take action of some sort, and usually for peaceful purposes.

People become political leaders because their speech can stir others to action.

But now, conservatives insist, their leaders and members have no effect when they speak. Odd claim, that.

"Naive nostalgia about how supposedly high-minded political discourse used to be doesn't help. The language used by our Founding Fathers during election campaigns--you know, the ones who wrote and ratified the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights--was as vitriolic as anything spoken or written today."

Much worse, actually. But of course, no one bothers to study history anymore.

"For God's sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him to pieces in the face of the public." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, writing about Alexander Hamilton.

The most frightening phrase in the English language is "hate speech." Once an opinion is defined as such, it can no longer be defended. Thus when Juan Williams confesses to a not entirely irrational fear of Muslims in airports, the left seeks to snuff it completely out, never mind that it was the statement of a man about his own feelings, of which he was not terribly proud.

Leftists never seem to get it that the tactics they use against the right may one day be turned against them. It wouldn't take a huge cultural shift for the defense of Muslim terrorists or of illegal immigrants to be declared hate speech, and the speakers sentenced to indefinite prison terms.

LOL. Quoting the Westboro "Baptist Church" as proof of general political sentiment of a political party or philosophy is as useful and honest a rhetorical tactic as quoting Jared Lee Loughner for the same purpose.

Or, using a more local set of examples, quoting "Florida" or "Alex" as general exemplars of any legitimate political philosophy or party or sentiment. There's a word for these people: trolls.

by hamsterattack January 9, 2011 4:00 PM ESTit's a bit ironic that the one person who talks about "targeting" and "taking out" opponents who are in the "crosshairs" is now trying to play like she had nothing to do with this...

One problem is the great majority of WASPs and jews--even ones who visited Collegetown--- generally can't reason, write, or provide an argument supported with facts, evidence, data--even at the crackerbarrel Jeffersonian level.

So they resort to...Limbaughspeak, which is to say...Wheezebaggery. And Orwell would probably agree (tho Orwell's own writing fairly mundane as well). Whoop, there it izz, hilllbillies of Wheeze-house

Anyone with a bare minimum knowledge of American History would know that the current level of political discourse pales in comparison to the violent and combative tone of the era leading up to the Civil War. The threats of violence and virulent partisanship lead to such salutary events as the caning of a Congressman in the Capital building. The tone of our current rhetoric should be viewed as a mere bag of shells....so to speak.

Angle:"You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. ... I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

What Angle said is true: Tyrannical government can only be stopped by an armed populace, but an unarmed people cannot stop a tyrannical government. Our founding fathers knew that because they lived under the rule of a tyrannical government. And they killed it by declaring war against it.

If our government becomes tyrannical, we have an obligation to end that government - peaceably if possible - but if that's not possible then the founders made sure we'd have other options so that we would never become slaves again to tyranny.

Remember: Democrats are already passing laws saying we have to buy things from their campaign donors. That is one definition of slavery.

There is nothing wrong with using deadly force against a tyrannical out-of-control government - even here in the United States. Maybe especially here in the United States.

Our political leaders know our history as well as we do. They know we have the means to do it and that's what keeps them in check.

That's a good thing that only a government heading towards tyranny would want to extinguish. A government heading towards enslaving its population would want to make sure to eliminate any opposition first by disarming that opposition.

So I'm not surprised to see our resident Marxist GarageMahal agitating toward eliminating the ability of Americans to provide for themselves good guards for their future security.

Where power rises upwards from the people to the great, as in all republics, such refinements of civility are apt to be little practised; since the whole state is, by that means, brought near to a level, and every member of it is rendered, in a great measure, independent of another. The people have the advantage, by the authority of their suffrages: The great, by the superiority of their station. But in a civilized monarchy, there is a long train of dependence from the prince to the peasant, which is not great enough to render property precarious, or depress the minds of the people; but is sufficient to beget in every one an inclination to please his superiors, and to form himself upon those models, which are most acceptable to people of condition and education. Politeness of manners, therefore, arises most naturally in monarchies and courts; and where that flourishes, none of the liberal arts will be altogether neglected or despised."

No advantages in this world are pure and unmixed. In like manner, as modern politeness, which is naturally so ornamental, runs often into affectation and foppery, disguise and insincerity; so the ancient simplicity, which is naturally so amiable and affecting, often degenerates into rusticity and abuse, scurrility and obscenity.Of The Rise And Progress Of The Arts And Sciences / Hume, David

Presumably a free speech advocate can also express disapproval when politicians comment about 'second amendment remedies,' or 'resorting to bullets if ballots don't go their way.'

And presumably, self anointed monitors of public discourse can announce disapproval of Democrats saying things like this:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.

Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly when he said that "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures." Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks."

Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate. Nast's castigation of the Tweed Ring, Walt McDougall's characterization of presidential candidate James G. Blaine's banquet with the millionaires at Delmonico's as "The Royal Feast of Belshazzar," and numerous other efforts have undoubtedly had an effect on the course and outcome of contemporaneous debate. Lincoln's tall, gangling posture, Teddy Roosevelt's glasses and teeth, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's jutting jaw and cigarette holder have been memorialized by political cartoons with an effect that could not have been obtained by the photographer or the portrait artist. From the viewpoint of history it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry FalwellNo. 86-1278SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES485 U.S. 46February 24, 1988, Decided

The events of the last few days will be used by the enemies of freedom and free expression to attempt to stifle our first amendment rights. Led by the usual suspects….the mainstream media who want a monopoly of freedom of expression due to their failing business model…..left wing politicians who demand that speech by moderated and controlled by the elite….and the fellow travelers of the Moderate RHINO’s who will stand on the couch holding up their dress to show how dainty are their sensibilities. It is unfortunate that “Our Russ” was turned out of his position as he would have been happy to combine with that First Amendment hating John McCain to formulate some new legislation to abrogate the rights of Americans under our Constitution that the liberal intelligentsia has had so much fun mocking the last few weeks.

"Do I believe such opinions must be silenced? Absolutely not. Do you?"

Not silenced by law. But, I think we can shame folks to not make such incendiary comments.

This is similar to the way that most folks wouldn't legally restrict the so-called ground zero mosque, but folks can speak out against it, if they think that it's the wrong thing to do, even though it's legally permissible.

I think the comments from Angle and West's almost-CoS and folks wanting to shoot Scott are wrong. I think these folks should be ridiculed out of the public square when they say stupid (but legal) things.

Obviously, I'd prefer it if those who stood up to the task of governance wouldn't be gunned down while having a met and greet, along with many totally innocent bystanders, including a nine year old girl.

Yet, this guy was clearly crazy.

What's troubling to me, and a sign that I will not cast my vote anywhere near the democratic platform, is that so many who want that platform to succeed are resorting to using this tragedy to gain political traction, villify those who have principled disagreement, and further their aims.

They jumped on it because they needed to,in order to maintain power.

I want our offices to be filled who least want to hold them, but most realize the importance of holding them

It is the plan and evil design of the liberal dominated main stream media to stifle all other forms of discourse because their industry is dying the death of a thousand cuts. With every outraged citizen who turns away from their biased reporting to find alternative views they bleed just a little bit more. Band aids with not suffice. They are gearing up for a jihad against those who do not hew to the Jounrnalist line. They have been trying for quite some time to destroy diversity of opinion and will use any tool in their frenzied attempt to survive.

They are truly rats backed into a corner and shoudl be considered just as rabid and dangerous.

“I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.... He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” -- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, Nov. 4, 1994, on PBS’s “To the Contrary.”

Republican or Democrat. And here I sit cast into the role of "independent," when I'm probably more center right than anything else, because our politics is so contentious and such a spectacle at the moment

Ah, 1j. You make the erroneous assumption that there's still such a thing as shame. The moral relativists amongst us ended that for us a few decades back. They refuse to accept responsibility for it even in the face of such an event.

When a 73-year-old Democrat who has risen through the regime of power for 16 years says that political candidates of the opposing Republican party should be murdered, then we ladies and gentlemen need to begin a national discussion about our tyrannical government and what to eliminate them.

Fortunately, Florida voters took care of their tyrannical little Representative and fired his dumb ass and replaced him with a Republican.

But what if Kanjorski had won re-election? What if other Democrats began taking his calls of murder to heart?

"You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?" -- Chris Matthews

Not silenced by law. But, I think we can shame folks to not make such incendiary comments.

This is the key point. No one is calling for vitriolic political speech to be banned, at least from what I've seen over the past couple of days. The issue is what is considered socially acceptable and what should be criticized by decent people. Politics is a rough game, and martial or pugilistic metaphors are common. Nothing wrong with that, and some people or ideas need to be criticized or mocked savagely. The issue is, at what point does one say, that's out of line?

And that's the question I'd like to put to you, Althouse. You've been critical in general of those who want to see certain kinds of rhetoric cast outside the pale of civil society. Do you have a line that you draw? Again - I'm not talking about use of the law in this context, I'm talking about social mores among normal people. (Obviously the rage addicts won't get the message - but part of the idea here is to draw the line between them and the rest of society.)

You make the erroneous assumption that there's still such a thing as shame. The moral relativists amongst us ended that for us a few decades back.

First of all, that's not completely true. There's lots of things that are perfectly legal to say that respectable people won't say publicly without being criticized as out of line, or not sat all. Casual use of racial slurs comes to mind. And if you are correct that shame isn't as strong a part of cultural life as it should be (and I'd agree), why not work to bring it back?

Anyone with a bare minimum knowledge of American History would know that the current level of political discourse pales in comparison to the violent and combative tone of the era leading up to the Civil War. The threats of violence and virulent partisanship lead to such salutary events as the caning of a Congressman in the Capital building.

somefeller - so you want social shaming of those who use over-the-top violent rhetoric. Yet in this thread such rhetoric by the left has been pointed out again and again, you are silent. I can only conclude that you are a viscous lefty who wants to silence conservatives.

But perhaps we can stop pretending like what we have now is new or novel or cause for the abrogation of our first amendment rights which is the obvious design of so many of the enemies of freedom.

I'll agree with the first part of that sentence, but who is calling to abrogate the First Amendment in the wake of this? I'll agree that John McCain has said some dumb stuff in the past about banning negative campaign ads, but who cares about him anymore?

I think the comments from Angle and West's almost-CoS and folks wanting to shoot Scott are wrong. I think these folks should be ridiculed out of the public square when they say stupid (but legal) things

Great.

And Obama has said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl

IMO, that quote is not at the same level as the ones I linked to where cons are suggesting that fellow cons are literally stocking up with guns so they can take back their government if they loose at the ballot box.

BTW, do any of you think that 18 USC Sec. 871 should be modified, to further advance freedom of speech in America?

"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Wikipedia Phelps is a disbarred lawyer, founder of the Phelps Chartered law firm, a past civil rights activist in Kansas, and a Democrat who has five times been a candidate for political office in Kansas Democratic Party primaries....

Democratic PartyPhelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15 percent of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31 percent of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993[unreliable source?] and 1997.

Support for Al Gore Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election.[31] In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm". Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps' son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser at his home in Topeka and was a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention. Gore spokesman Dag Vega declined to comment, saying "We are not dignifying those stories with a response."

Now I know wikipedia is not a bastion of truth, but facts is facts woof.

Do I think he represents a typical Democrat? No.

But you might want to consider *fact checking* before you decide to post. Might create the illusion of responsible posting.

We are in no danger of "going back to" the days when it wasn't unusual for politicians to use physical violence on their opponents. When you make an argument like that, you are implicitly smearing people who engage in heated political rhetoric.

I spent an hour cruising the comments at Huffington Post and Salon. If you are looking for vilification you need look no further. If you are looking for violent imagery you will find on those sites an abundance of adolescent fantasies concerning what should be done to conservatives. You will see the words "Fox News, Palin, Beck, Hannity, etc" as though cut and pasted on dozens and dozens of comments. No irony in evidence.

During a weekly radio and television address on February 28, 2009, President Obama laid out his plan to reform healthcare in America. He also had a message to the special interests opposed to his agenda.

“I know they [the special interests and lobbyists] are gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: so am I.”

"I'll agree with the first part of that sentence, but who is calling to abrogate the First Amendment in the wake of this?"

Did you just see the quote by Chris Matthews regarding Rush Limbaugh? Or anything that AlpahLiberal and others of his ilk have been spewing the past few days. The dream of the left in this country is that Fox News be destroyed, Limbaugh and the rest of talk radio be silenced and NPR and other liberal propaganda vehicles be fully funded by government money as the only acceptable provided of news or political discourse.

And by the left I include such worthies as the current President of the United States.

You would have to look long and hard to find a bigger opponent of free speech then President Obama.

@ 1jpb (or whatever)While I can't personally imagine myself stockpiling weapons for a fight with the federal government, that is actually something the Founding Fathers considered not unreasonable. And IIRC, commendable. (Read some Jefferson quotes. Some people love his "wall" thingey about church & state, but not his comments about tyrannical governments.)

But then that was all more than 100 years ago. So it doesn't count. Right?

@Trooper York: I believe that if it were in their power to shut down Fox they would do so without a qualm. They would use the disappearance of opposition as evidence of the wisdom of their move and would proceed to talk radio and a re imposition of the fairness doctrine. They are working on this at this very moment. The left is or has become what I thought Orwell was describing as the right. I think I misread completely.

We are in no danger of "going back to" the days when it wasn't unusual for politicians to use physical violence on their opponents.

I hope you are correct. But the way to make sure that's the case is for certain norms of behavior to be maintained. Civilization is an everyday struggle.

Did you just see the qoute by Chris Matthews regarding Rush Limbaugh?

Yes, it was a dipshit comment. But not state action.

Or anything that AlpahLiberal and others of his ilk have been spewing the past few days.

AlphaLiberal said some dumb stuff while jumping to conclusions about this case. (And we still don't know enough about this shooter to make judgments on ideology or not.) But if he called for the government to shut down Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, I missed that.

During the town hall meeting protests of the summer of 2009, Senior White House adviser David Axelrod and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina told Democrat Senators, “If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard.”

Although the quote is attributed to Messina, it has been tied to Obama and did come from an official top source in the Administration.

IMO, that quote is not at the same level as the ones I linked to where cons are suggesting that fellow cons are literally stocking up with guns so they can take back their government if they loose at the ballot box.

"While I can't personally imagine myself stockpiling weapons for a fight with the federal government"

IMHO, the disturbing part isn't that they're stockpiling for a fight w/ the feds. The disturbing thing is that they're stockpiling for a fight if the majority of the electorate doesn't vote the way they want them to.

In other words; if majority rule doesn't work out for them, they've got bullets. Is that what Jefferson had in mind?

Part of the problem with violent rhetoric is that it is used by people who have never been violent themselves. I chalk up many of our modern day problems to the cessation of playground fist fighting where people learned that violence hurts, is effective in some instances and should be used sparingly. The fist fights of my youth taught me much about when to push and when to walk away and to observe people very very carefully. I can assure you that the shooter in Tucson has never been in a fight, has never had the shit knocked out of him when that was what was called for.

Which is why the elite (the parents if you will) have to constrain the children and their right to speech and assembly and of course to bear arms. It is that potential which forces us to have hate speech codes and censorship and FCC oversight and other forms of making sure the "children" don't say something bad.

"No, you can conclude that I don't see a need to respond to every comment."

Disingenuous evasion.

Somefeller, you really need to address Barack Obama's violent rhetoric if you wish to be taken seriously as someone who merely wants to see comity restored across the land.

You're very quick to demonize Republicans or Tea Partiers, but you are strangely silent when Barack Obama encouraged union thugs to town hall meetings to beat people up. To bring guns. To punish their enemies. TO get in their faces.

What say you?

Nobody is taking you seriously because it's transparent that you only want to shut down the other side's successful speech and your protestations to the contrary are easily dis-proven by your lack of condemnation of Democrat Party tyrants.

Your silence, in other words, speaks volumes.

If you want to be seen as a moderate (and it's clear that you desperately need that) then you need to condemn Barack Obama's hate-filled violent campaign speeches.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”Samuel Adams, Brewer and Patriot.

IMO, that quote is not at the same level as the ones I linked to where cons are suggesting that fellow cons are literally stocking up with guns so they can take back their government if they loose at the ballot box.

That's not the point.The point is when a Democrat says something like this.

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.

You pretend it didn't happen.Anything anyone posts that shows the left is just as guilty, you either don't acknowledge it or dismiss it as irrelevant.

"I have a good news to report; Glen Beck appears closer to suicide - I'm hoping that he does it on camera; suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glen Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months." -- Mike Malloy

Which is why the elite (the parents if you will) have to constrain the children and their right to speech and assembly and of course to bear arms. It is that potential which forces us to have hate speech codes and censorship and FCC oversight and other forms of making sure the "children" don't say something bad.

I'm just repeating myself. You have the *right* to be an asshole. My question is why would you want to be one? What is it that you want to be free to do? to be?

This whole imagined scenario that America is about to repeal the first amendment seems hysterical to me. But it is a clever way to change the subject from responsibility I guess.

Trooper York: Good Henry and Adams quotes, but remember, they were referring to rebellion against a government that didn't allow for elections or other means of peaceful political action. The rules of the game when overthrowing a foreign (and by that time, Britain had become quite foreign to the Colonies) power and dealing with your fellow citizens in public life differ greatly.

I've already stated (in this thread) that the guy who made the Scott comment should have been ridiculed out of the public square (which was the same remedy I recommended for the other two situations). I'll accept your silence as an apology for your error, I know it'd be asking too much to expect an actual retraction.

Rev,

There is a clear link to a loss at the ballot box:

“it’s almost an imperative” that conservatives win.

“The nation is arming,” she told the newspaper. “What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?”

And here was the other quote (3:44) that directly discusses bullets instead of ballots:

"I don’t care how this gets painted by the mainstream media, I don’t care if this shows up on YouTube, because I am convinced the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will."

IMHO, these comments should be avoided. You disagree. So what? It's a free country.

Sunsong: There is no reason to repeal the 1st Amendment if you can reinstall the Fairness Act, implement Hate Speech codes in the academy, take over the internet and use the media to demonize the opposition at will.

I am not changing the subject. Of course you should be responsible for what you say and do. Who is arguing that? Not me. But impugning your opposition and trying to say that political ads and overinflated rhetoric was the trigger for the acts of a madman is a time honored means of restricting rights. Of setting the tone to regulate through the FCC or other government agencies. Look at the speech codes and "Hate speech" laws that are all over our country. And as we have found out these laws will only be applied to certain members of our society. The Obama justice department applies the laws according to the color of your skin and not the content of your character. Or haven’t you been following the news?

How did they escape the “responsibility” for that?

You may rest assured that the application of the laws by this administration will be a one way street. And that sends a shudder through those who are not part of that cabal.

Believing in an utter and absolute right to any type of political speech does not make you a childish asshole. It makes you a Patriot.

they were referring to rebellion against a government that didn't allow for elections or other means of peaceful political action.

That's not a very accurate description. The problem with the British governance of America wasn't that it didn't allow elections (it did), but that the elections didn't matter. Americans were ruled by people they had no control over.

The feeling in the Tea Party movement is that we still are. This isn't an anti-Democratic thing, it is an anti-political-establishment thing. Don't think that just because Sarah Palin has shoved herself onto the stage at Tea Party rallies that she speaks for the movement. They -- we -- are angry that we vote and IT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. No matter who gets into office, the same outrages keep happening.

My grandfather was involved in politics in La. during the Huey Long area. Most people don't know what political vitriol is. If you weren't with Huey you were against him and he would not only say bad things about you but destroy you and your family.

I think speech should come with no responsibilities! Yeay!! We should all just be able to say shit with no responsibility attached to what happens as a result of what we say!!! That's what happens in mature democracies!!!! We put people in crosshairs and don't expect that to influence the loonies!!!! It's ALL GOOD!!!11!!1!! FUCK THE LIBERALS FOR BELIEVING IN REASON. REASON SUX AND HINDERS OUR LIBERTY!!!1!1!1

Alphaliberal wrote:But now, conservatives insist, their leaders and members have no effect when they speak. Odd claim, that.

In the context of a campaign, a leader putting bullseyes on political offices, or political office holders, inspires his or her followers to target that political office or officeholder for capture or defeat.It no more encourages people to kill than a clip art target icon encourages murder and mayhem.

There is no reason to repeal the 1st Amendment if you can reinstall the Fairness Act, implement Hate Speech codes in the academy, take over the internet and use the media to demonize the opposition at will.

The House is now solidly in republican hands. The chances of the Fairness Act being reinstalled are slim for the next two years - same with taking over the internet.

There is no *media* anymore, imo. people get their info from lots of different places these days. We all know what Chris Matthews is about and we all know what Glenn Beck is about. Again, we are also personally responsible for who we choose to believe.

No one agrees with you, Michael. The cons are on the defensive about this for the simple reason that their obsession with violence and unwillingness to compromise influences the loonies, and they know it.

But it's about the freedom, you see. The freedom to not be responsible. For death. That's very, very important - their ultimate trump card. Well, really, their only card.

"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets." -- Erica Jong, 2008

Sunsong: I realize that the Republicans will prevent a reimposition of the Fairness Act, but my point was that liberal Democrats would happily reinstall it. I think you will find that most efforts to curtail free speech come from the left and not from the right.

It's victimology equivalence. Cons know that sympathy is a powerful emotion, so they want to claim a right to it. Saying violent things about people who later end up murdered them shouldn't matter, of course. Why would it? All that matters is whether cons get sympathy for their cause and whether the people they target with violent imagery end up dead, well, that's just not a fair excuse for denying the cons their sympathy. It's just not fair. They are right always no matter what forever and ever til the end of time.

Conservatives4: Have a look at the comments section here on Althouse and then on Huffington Post and Salon. I won't even bother to waste your time on the obvious rabid sites. You will see more vitriol, more vilification and more violent imagery there, on the left, than you do on the right. But the left has managed the big lie by repeating over and over that the right is violent. We have been too busy fucking the poor and stealing from the indigent to be violent. Political violence is a lefty fantasy, a Che comrade wet dream.

"Call me wacky, but hurray for the tiger that killed the kid who was... taunting him. Now, I know this is not right... but let's hear it for the wild... I loathe zoos. I'm still cheering the fact that some stingray whacked that Aussie pain in the *ss Steve Irwin." -- Air America radio host Lionel, 2008

Anonymous web comments do not equal ads endorsed by politicians or their johns and paid for by powerful people who emblazon them across television screens all over the constituents' district. It's a power thing, Michael - which is why you don't recognize it.

"The sheriff's department cleared a man who had been considered a possible second suspect in the shooting spree. Authorities said they had identified the man as a cab driver who had brought Loughner to the scene, but had no involvement in the shooting."

For the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents. Not just arguing against their opponents, but doing everything possible to turn them into enemies of the country and cast them out beyond the pale. Instead of “soft on defense,” one routinely hears the words “treason” and “traitor.” The President isn't a big-government liberal—he's a socialist who wants to impose tyranny. He's also, according to a minority of Republicans, including elected officials, an impostor. Even the reading of the Constitution on the first day of the 112th Congress was conceived as an assault on the legitimacy of the Democratic Administration and Congress.

This relentlessly hostile rhetoric has become standard issue on the right. (On the left it appears in anonymous comment threads, not congressional speeches and national T.V. programs.)

Conservatives4: Look at the speech codes on any college campus. Compare and contrast the medias response to the Ft. Hood massacre with yesterday's. Google the sponsors of the Fairness Act and note their affiliation. Look for copies of any American literature in the universities of the former Soviet or East Germany or the Gulag, or in China or North Korea.

Saying "I want so-and-so dead" isn't violent imagery (which, along with name calling, I'm in favor of) but a call to action.

I think the people online who are always screaming "ad hominem attack" are just pretentiously trying to show they know big words (or latin?) as well as their contempt for the colloquial language of the common man - who, many times, is smarter than they are. It's a way to avoid the substance of an argument by focusing on the words used. (Saying "you're full of shit" sure has meaning to me.)

Freedom of Speech means just that - you have the freedom to speak as you do - it's avoiding the point is what's troublng.

I am opposed to speech codes on campus but do not consider them equivalent to the need/impulse/glory of using violent rhetoric to target political opponents. At least, not when you have the shamelessness to cry sympathy and coincidence as a result.

Your other "examples" don't occur on American soil so I'll consider your willingness to post them either an attempt to derail the point (the charitable conclusion), or your side's typical, and desperate interest in accusations of treason on account of a simple, stupid political disagreement.

I'll repost what Packer wrote and see if you still can't understand the difference:

For the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents. Not just arguing against their opponents, but doing everything possible to turn them into enemies of the country and cast them out beyond the pale. Instead of “soft on defense,” one routinely hears the words “treason” and “traitor.” The President isn't a big-government liberal—he's a socialist who wants to impose tyranny. He's also, according to a minority of Republicans, including elected officials, an impostor. Even the reading of the Constitution on the first day of the 112th Congress was conceived as an assault on the legitimacy of the Democratic Administration and Congress.

This relentlessly hostile rhetoric has become standard issue on the right. (On the left it appears in anonymous comment threads, not congressional speeches and national T.V. programs.)

Sunsong wrote: The House is now solidly in republican hands. The chances of the Fairness Act being reinstalled are slim for the next two years - same with taking over the internet.

What you say is technically true, but you're forgetting about the vast administrative state, which is in the hands of the Executive. Agencies can't specifically pass laws, and Congress can override them (if they are paying attention, which they usually are not), but they can regulate out of existence, and they can do so bit by bit, so that each little step doesn't seem so bad.

Calling something stupid is not the same thing as delegitimizing a faction's existence.

Delegitimizing is a prerequisite for making something disappear, so to speak. Murderers dehumanize their victims, so as to make the act ethically compatible with their aims. I'm not surprised you used that word and am shocked that you don't see the big pile you just admitted to stepping in by using it.

Conservatives4: So, you concede that the left is more inclined than the right to limit speech? And you believe that speech that you might choose to characterize as hateful or violence inducing should be squelched? The Packer quote is his opinion to which he is entitled. I could write a similarly sweeping paragraph on the left's consistent demonizing of the right as racist, etc. Because that kind of baseless big lie has been told so often that it is a matter of a Katie Couric like faith on the part of the left. Not to mention the new voice of the left on such matters, Joy Behar. Who may in fact lead someone to do violence.

Obama's extremist rhetoric:Could he be to blame? He's as bad as that horrible Palin and Glen Beck!

Obama: “They Bring a Knife...We Bring a Gun”Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks…...so I know whose ass to kick.“Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Miss history class in HS Mike? How did that "allies" thing work out? What was the initial reason...

In 20 words or less what was Barbarossa? Was the Soviet Union mentioned in Mein Kampf? Does Hitler's writing in Mein Kampf give you any indication as to the relationship Hitler invisioned with the Soviet Union?

Until your daddy learns that it's not 'fun' to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals that they could be next! -- From a PETA booklet called "Your Daddy Kills Animals," which was designed to be handed out to children.

I concede nothing. I assert that there are responsibilities that come with what you say and how you want to say it. A point that cons want to apply as a caveat (or so they claim) to the second amendment, but apparently not the first.

Shameless, immature irresponsibility.

Keep trying to delegitimize. It reflects your lack of security/legitimacy in your own ideas.

I've already stated (in this thread) that the guy who made the Scott comment should have been ridiculed out of the public square (which was the same remedy I recommended for the other two situations). I'll accept your silence as an apology for your error, I know it'd be asking too much to expect an actual retraction.

WTF? You're immediate response to my statement is claiming I'm being silent?I have nothing to retract or apologize for.

These are your exact words."I think the comments from Angle and West's almost-CoS and folks wanting to shoot Scott are wrong. I think these folks should be ridiculed out of the public square when they say stupid (but legal) things"

Call out the right wingers by name but left wingers that spew hate that's just "the guy" or "folks wanting to"Can't bring yourself to at least name their political party can you?No that might make your side look bad.You're still a hypocrite.

"It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that changes fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every -- They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet." -- U.C. Berkeley Lecturer Hatem Bazian fires up the crowd at an anti-war rally by calling for an American intifada

So we shouldn't use violent metaphors because some people believe that that might set off the occasional untreated insane person who might hurt people? (Even though we have no actual evidence that any sort of rhetoric spurred this violence and ample evidence that insane people are not set off by such rhetoric.)

I guess we should never talk about good food then. That could set perfectly sane people off to eat unhealthily. That kills far more people than random violence perpetrated by the insane.

As hard as is it to accept on a day like today, when a little girl lay dead at the hands of a madman, the truth is it's to our credit we don't have more of these incidents. Look at Mexico, for instance. Even before the drug war, 20 or some journalists a year are murdered.

We still have a fairly low level of violence for such a huge country. No nation has a 100% non-violent society.

"I know how the 'tea party' people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their 'Obama Plan White Slavery' signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads." -- The Washington Post's Courtland Milloy

Keep trying to delegitimize. It reflects your lack of security/legitimacy in your own ideas.

Hysterical.

Um, I guess that is why the left tried so desperately to tie this incident to the Tea Party.

You know,One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did. “They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat.